PSA - Major Paper Loss = GOOD 2 ???

[glchen]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I have seen the card out of the holder. Not that bad at all. When submitting, I was expecting a '4'.

I think the Mantle received a 1 based on the warping also. If you still have the card, you may try re-soaking it, and then re-submit it again. However, it may still not upgrade the card. The back seems kind of lumpy like it may have water damage. If there's obvious water damage to the card, it would probably stay in a 1 holder.

[BlueDevil89]

The inconsistency in the application of the grading standards is the most frustrating aspect to me. The grading companies are getting paid to apply relatively consistent standards. I expect some level of discrepancy, but not to the extent being identified in this thread. I imagine a more detailed analysis would yield far wider variation.

[1880nonsports]

take a look at the last major auction from Heritage - there were N162's in 6's and 7's with front and/or back paper loss. I could only bid so high on a few of those cards on my list out of over 50 cards listed because I wouldn't be able to cross them to SGC even close to the same grades or at the very least that was my fear. I need the uniformity within my sets as I'm OMG - now known as OCD - but when I was a kid in the 1950's I only heard OMG........ SGC is more rigid about such loss in my experience. Recently purchased an N162 Anson PSA 2 with 3/4 POINT of a pin sized spots of P/L. It just shows a level of inconsistency. I'm crossing it and could care less about what they grade it. It's a beautiful card and for me the grade is only relevant when one goes out into the cold world of commerce and finance as a motivated seller.
In fairness I believe it's just a question of what criteria the particular TPG uses and whether your hierarchical priorities are aligned with theirs. One might think centering more important than whatever - doesn't make them right or wrong.
I'm not really comfortable with the number of cards the major TPG's make significant mistakes on but they offer a service people seem to want and are likely getting it "right (whatever that is - "I sent in my dog-eared card that I love and it got an 8! I LOVE my grading company!) most of the time. In reading Joe Orlando's comments about HIS graders - it's clear they are often spending as much time grading a 2001 foil as an E90-1 - a few seconds. It's a rare bird that can effectively evaluate such different cards and in addition I'd like a little more attention paid to my cards details rather than a cursory glance - I would think due diligence implied in the service I'm paying for.
The big boys process a great deal of cards - graders often rendering opinion in seconds to accommodate the volume - and it's subsequently proffered and sealed er entombed along with the card by nameless souls with unknown qualifications - undoubtedly barely of voting age and likely unfamiliar with many of the older cards and the nuances. OK. Done venting.....